Manifestations of economic integration consequences in Lithuania foreign trade/Ekonomines integracijos pasekmiu apraiskos lietuvos uzsienio prekyboje.
Zitkiene, Rima ; Zitkus, Leonas
1. Introduction
The concept 'economic integration' can have various
meanings. It can be enterprise's integration into a larger concern.
It can also have special context, for example, when the integration of
region's economy into the country's economy is considered. In
this article the concept 'economic integration' is used to
characterize the intensity of international economic relations. So the
definition of W. Molle is suitable: integration is gradual disappearance
of economic boundaries between independent states until economies of
those countries start functioning as a unified whole (Molle 2006: 8).
The core element of major integrated economic systems (integration
groups) is integration of goods markets--as a certain state and / or
continuous process. With the help of legal means (agreements, treaties)
states try to repeal obstacles for free mutual trade exchanges.
Integration consequences understood this way [1] have begun to be
analyzed since the first years of the European Community creation. The
first works were attached to the changes caused by classic static
consequences, i.e. trade creation and trade diversion (Balassa 1961;
Pelkmans 1984). Later, at the end of the 9th decade of the 20th century
and at the beginning of the last decade of the 20th century, the new
studies related to the analysis of consequences of common market
creation and perspectives as well as possible effects of economic
monetary union showed.
Lithuania's (as well as of other CEE countries) choice to go
on the way of integration to the structures of Western Europe was more
of emotional nature that was dictated by rational economic motives. In
socioeconomic sense this way was understood as 'suboptimal decision
of wealth maximization problem' (Swierkocki, Woreta 1998).
Supporters of this way argued their position by the achievements of that
time European Community countries, which were derived from integration
of those countries' economies. Their opponents stated (and it ran
quite convincible) that, first of all, partners' potential and
static state in integration processes were very different though,
secondly, the present theories referring to which it was supposed to
explain the benefit created by the integration, could be inappropriate
for such situation (Jovanovic 1997; Molle 2006). In the case of
Lithuania those fears were strengthened by the fact that country's
economy almost had no direct relations with Western Europe until getting
back its independence.
Nowadays after almost fifteen years passed since entering into
first economic relations with the EU regulated by agreements and the
analysis of integration to the EU consequences could help to dispel (or
confirm) mentioned doubts. During this period various aspects of
international impact on countries economy caused and still cause the
interest of scientists in Lithuania (Piesarskas et al. 2003; Lietuvos
integracija ... 2007; Starkeviciute 2007; Melnikas 2008; Zitkus,
Zitkiene 2008; Davulis 2009; Travkina, Dudzeviciute, Maciukeviciene
2009) as well as in other countries: Czech Republic (Kraftova, Kraft
2004), Latvia (Rivza et al. 2010), Poland (Stawarska 1998;
Kawecka-Wyrzykowska 2001; Niemiec 2008; Olczyk, Wolszczak-Derlacz 2009).
The problem--whether the changes, which can be explained by regularities
of economic integration, occur in Lithuania's economic relations
with other countries--is discussed in this work. Integration
consequences, first of all, reveal in foreign trade, therefore they are
disclosed by the changes, which occurred in the last fifteen years in
this field.
The aim of the work is to identify changes occurring in Lithuanian
foreign trade, which could be ascribed to integration consequences
formulated in scientific literature.
In order to attain the aim the following objectives are formulated:
--to explain development of legal basis of Lithuania's foreign
trade relations;
--to determine the position of foreign trade changes in the whole
(system) of economic integration consequences;
--to reveal Lithuanian foreign trade changes mostly related to
integration processes.
Methods of the research: analysis of scientific literature, legal
statements and statistical data, synthesis of information obtained
during the analysis.
2. Development of legal basis of Lithuania's foreign trade
relations
As supporters of functionalist theory of the European integration
state (Jovanovic 2006; Misala 2009; Molle et al. 2009), integration
process occurs in the following sequence: first of all, international
legal basis to eliminate obstacles for economic cooperation is created
(agreements, directives and other legal statements); then policies of
particular countries and entire integration group are adjusted so that
those changes (elimination of obstacles) occur as smooth as possible in
order to cause less painful social, cultural, demographic and other
consequences; finally, 'real' integration occurs while running
market mechanisms when economic subjects using possibilities provided by
international agreements develop their economic cooperation.
Though impact of the EU integration on the development of
Lithuanian foreign trade in the last decade of the 20th century is not
estimated homogeneously (Morkeliunas, Ziaunys 2000; Vilpisauskas 2000;
Brazukiene 1998, 2005; Jakutis et al. 2007; Bernatonyte, Normantiene
2009), it is obvious that foreign trade directions and amounts of
Lithuania as the member of the EU are significantly influenced by single
market and common trade policy. As Lithuania gradually is integrating
into the EU structures, the strength of economic systems (trade exchange
obstacles) changed as well: after corresponding agreements coming into
force (Table 1), many favourable conditions for mutual trade formed.
Principles of trade regulation between Lithuania and non-EU
countries are much more complicated. The EU member states in their trade
relations with the third countries are represented by the European
Community by making agreements with them. Due to a great diversity of
these agreements between the EC and the third parties, their uniform
classification has not been developed. Special literature (Nicoll,
Salmon 2002) distinguishes two types of these agreements:
--commercial agreements, including agreements on duty unions;
--mixed agreements covering not only trade, but, also, other issues
of economic and political cooperation.
The nature of commercial agreements might be preferential or
non-preferential. Non-preferential contracts designed for goods exchange
regulation are not numerous. They are concluded to fix trade conditions
for particular goods in compliance with the status of greatest goodwill.
With a view to export development, preferential contracts are more
important as they provide some advantages for the partners: e. g.
reduced duty tariffs and / or lifted commercial restrictions.
Preferential agreements are characteristic of different degree of
'strength'. The higher is the degree of preference, the fewer
barriers remain for the products of one country to get into another
country's markets. The agreements made by the EC listed in the
order of declining preferential strength are the following (Unia
Europejska 2001):
--duty union between the EC and third countries,
--free trade zones,
--bilateral preferential agreements,
--trade contracts providing no preferences, but rather confirming
cooperation principles fixed by WTO (non-preferential contracts).
The wholeness of the above-mentioned agreements between the EC and
third countries constitute a rather complicated system; therefore, to
elucidate it, the metaphor of a target can be used. The centre of the
target is the home market of the EU, and the concentric circles around
the centre are the markets of the third countries, which have made
contracts with the EC of different 'strength'. The more
barriers in trade are eliminated, the closer to the centre the market of
any country moves (Fig. 1).
Duty Union between the EC and Third Countries. According to this
scheme, the closest to the centre (home market) is Turkey, the agreement
between which and the European Economic Community on duty union was
signed on 12 September, 1963.
In June, 1993 The Council of the European Summit in Copenhagen
fixed a new term for the duty union with Turkey. The main principles of
this union came into force on 1 January, 1996. Based on this, the tariff
barriers between the EC and Turkey for manufactured goods and processed
food products were lifted.
In addition, Turkey fulfilled a number of the obligations related
to the security of intellectual, industrial and commercial ownership
(within three years from the creation of the duty union). Some problems
in harmonizing the right for competition, particularly in the area of
the state's assistance, are felt. All this provides favourable
conditions for the partners of the EC in the Turkish market similar to
those in the EC.
At the end of the 1980s the Community made a decision to conclude
agreements on duty union with Andorra and San Marino. The transitional
agreement on trade and duty union with Andorra was signed on 28 June,
1990 (OJL 374/90, 31.12.1990), and with San Marino on 27 November, 1992
(OJL 359/92, 9.12.1992). Even though some points of these agreements (on
environment, communications, transportation, etc.) have not been
fulfilled yet, the regulatory statements on the functioning of the duty
union between these countries and the EC came into effect without much
difficulty. It was, most probably, because of the fact that both Andorra
and San Marino are small countries (with 72 and 26 thousand of
population, respectively), their economies being closely interrelated
with the neighbouring France, Spain and Italy, i.e. member states of the
EC.
Free Trade Areas between the EC and Third Countries. The countries
framing free trade areas with the EC form the second circle of the
'target'. This circle covers the countries of the European
Free Trade Association. Since the very start of this organization its
members were important trade partners of European Communities. After
1973, when Great Britain, Ireland and Denmark joined the European
Community, other EFTA countries, which feared for negative effects of
this expansion, concluded bilateral agreements with the EC on free trade
in manufactured goods. The main aim of these agreements is bilateral
trade development and observance of competition principles. The
reduction process of duties and quantitative restrictions was ended
until 1977. The above-mentioned bilateral agreements (with Finland
excluded) contained so-called evolutionary stipulation providing the
possibility to expand cooperation with other countries. Later it was
agreed on closer cooperation in transportation, research and
environment, and such countries as Portugal, Austria, Sweden, and
Finland became the EC member states. With the intensity of integration
among the EC countries, EFTA countries started actions for consolidating
economic and institutional relations with the main trade partner at the
end of 1980. In 1992 the Agreement on the European Economic Area was
signed; it came into force on 1 January, 1994 in Portugal (OJL 1/94,
1994-01-03). Switzerland, though signed the agreement, did not join the
EEA because the referendum failed.
Presently, most EC Single market regulations are in force in the
countries of EEA. It means that economy subjects of the EC countries are
not only free to trade in the markets, but also pursue economic activity
in setting up new companies, agencies or affiliates. Provision of
services in the EEA countries has been liberalized, i.e. the service
providers of outside countries are treated in the same way as the local
ones. The principle of free mobility of capital covers most of the forms
of capital transactions.
Switzerland, as mentioned above, does not belong to the EA. Its
trade relations with EC are regulated by the 1972 agreement on free
trade area covering trade in manufactured goods. On 21 June, 1999 seven
agreements on free mobility of people, liberalization of land, air and
transportation services, agriculture, public orders, mutual recognition
of technical requirements of products and cooperation in research and
technologies were concluded. In 2001 the negotiations on four more
agreements, i.e. on environment, statistics, trade in raw agricultural
products and prevention of fraud were started.
Bilateral Preferential Agreements. On signing the EC bilateral
preferential agreements the countries form the third circle of the
'target'. In this circle two segments, which differ in a
degree of closeness of cooperation between the countries of these
segments and the EC, can be distinguished.
Segment 3A: Countries of the Mediterranean Sea Basin. The basis of
the EC policy with respect to these countries was so-called Barcelona
Declaration (COM 72/95). This declaration was signed by EC countries and
12 states of the Mediterranean Sea Basin: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia,
Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Palestinian Autonomy, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey,
Cyprus and Malta. The Barcelona Declaration provides the establishment
of 'Euro-Mediterranean Partnership' in economic, financial,
political and socio-cultural areas until 2010 (this partnership at the
moment does not include Malta, Cyprus and Turkey), alongside with the
issues of the establishment of economic stability areas, development of
human resources, etc., the partnership aims at the establishment of the
Mediterranean Free Trade Area--MEFTA. This area (covering only the trade
in manufactured goods) has to be created based on bilateral agreements
of the Association (Table 2).
Segment 3B: The Countries of Africa and of the Basins of the
Caribbean and Pacific Oceans. The relations between the countries of
these regions and the EC are controlled by partnership agreements signed
on 23 June, 2000. The main aims of these agreements are consistent with
development of the economy of the countries of the above-mentioned
regions and integration into the world economy. The principles of mutual
trade set forth in the agreements, provide unilateral preferences (in
compliance with the 4th Lome Conference) and their amendments. Between
September 2002 and the end of the transitional period (i.e. up to the
end of 2007) the negotiations on the Economic Partnership Agreements
between the EC and several countries of the region were planned. One
element of these agreements will be the principles of free trade between
partners to come in force starting with 1 January 2008.
Non-preferential Agreements. Among countries, which have signed
ordinary (non-preferential) agreements, several groups comprising
individual segments of this circle can be distinguished.
Segment 4A: Commonwealth of Independent States. In the 1990s the EC
signed Agreements of Partnership and co-operation with the countries of
this group (Table 3). The countries involved in this agreement provided
the most favoured status in their trade relations; however, this does
not prevent the establishment of free trade areas or even duty unions.
It was agreed not to apply any quantitative restrictions for the trade
in manufactured goods. Besides, the agreements provided a tax-exempt
policy on goods from partner states. This provision also covers
transportation, distribution and sales of goods, as well as making use
of these goods. The non-discrimination principle is applied for direct
investment, too. The countries also undertook to observe the laws on the
intellectual and industrial property protection. Apart from Partnership
and co-operation agreements some CIS countries signed sectoral
agreements with the EC ensuring an easier way for so-called
'sensitive' goods (mostly, textile products) to get into a
single market. These are, however, unilateral commitments of the EC.
Segment 4B: Agreements with South American Countries. In 1995 the
EC signed the Inter-Regional Framework Cooperation Agreement with
Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR) countries. This agreement came into
effect on 01.07.1999. The agreement provided closer relations in the
areas of product standard harmonization, simplification of customs
procedures, protection of intellectual property, investment, research
and other areas of economic cooperation.
In November 1999 the negotiations on the new agreement providing
the association between the EC and MERCOSUR were launched. The trade
matters (reduction of duty taxes) started to be discussed only in 2001.
The free trade area between the EC and MERCOSUR was established in 2005.
The negotiations also discussed the issues of protection of intellectual
property, competition, politics, public orders, trade in services, etc.
Segment 4C: Asian Countries. Early in 1990 the EC started
negotiations with the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN),
which led to the conclusion of the framework agreement. This agreement
provided the development of trade relations beneficial for both parties.
The EC's interest in this region started in 1997. The programme New
Dynamic aimed at the improvement of border control and customs system
with a view to attract the investors' attention to the region of
South East Asia, was launched. The reason is the formation of the ASEAN
Free Trade Area (from 1992), which was to be finished until 2003. In
2006 Vietnam joined this area, in 2008--Laos and Myanmar and in
2010--Cambodia. Thus the ASEAN market will cover about 500 mill.
consumers.
On 1 January 1990 the EC agreement with Gulf Cooperation Council
countries (United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and
Kuwait) came into force. The main idea of this agreement was promoting
economic relations between the two groups focusing on trade development,
technical and industrial cooperation, environment, and since
1996--research. The countries declared the offshore status for the
imported goods from these countries.
Beyond the 'Target' borders: relations with the countries
of the 'Triad'. The fact that the EC trade and economic
relations with the most developed countries of the world have not been
regulated for a long time by any bilateral legal documents is one more
paradox of economic organization of the modern world. The emerging
conflicts in trade have been and are still solved by applying the
dispute settling procedure of the World Trade Organization.
Since May 1998, the relations between the USA and the European
Community have been built by the agreement of the Economic Transatlantic
partnership. It provides the removal of barriers in bilateral trade
(especially, technical) in the framework of WTO, rather than in that of
bilateral agreement.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
The analogous situation exists in the relations between the EC and
Japan in which the regulatory role is performed by insignificant
bilateral agreements:
--common declaration on cooperation of 18 June, 1990;
--the structures formed in the framework of the EU-Japan Industrial
policy and Industrial Cooperation Dialogue of January 1993;
--Trade Assessment Mechanism (1993), aimed at facilitating the
expert of EC goods to Japan.
Within the framework of the new approach to the relations with
developed countries the European Summit meeting adopted the decision on
intensive economic cooperation programme between the EC and Japan (June
1999). One of the elements of this programme should be agreements on the
security of research and technologies exchange and competition.
The intricacy of the EC relations with the third countries leads to
a complicated problem in the efforts to systematize them. The
'strength' of the EC economic boundaries is outlined not only
by trade matters, but also by a multitude of other nuances discussed in
different meetings. The metaphor 'target' offered here as well
as others, e.g. 'preference pyramids' (Unia Europejska 2001)
is purely of the illustrative nature.
3. position of foreign trade changes in common system of
integration consequences
It should be noticed that deepening of the EU integration of
Lithuania and other CEE countries was going on much faster than mutual
integration of old EU countries (Fig. 2). This fact also increased the
doubts about Lithuania's ability to "absorb" integration
consequences.
Summarizing abundant enough information about variety of
integration consequences (Molle 2009: 19) the following criteria of
their classification can be distinguished:
1. Manifestation field of consequences.
2. Manifestation time of consequences.
3. Manifestation level of consequences.
4. Nature of consequences.
Figure 3 shows the classification of integration consequences
according to the above-mentioned criteria.
Broadening the classification scheme provided by W. M. Orlowski
(Kawecka-Wyrzykowska 1999), the following qualitative economic
consequences can be distinguished:
Classic static short- and middle-term consequences: 1.
--trade creation;
--trade diversion;
--reviving 'terms of trade' with the third countries.
2. Classic dynamic middle- and long-term consequences:
--growth of competitiveness and activity efficiency;
--scale economy effect of production;
--allocation optimization of production factors;
--derivative consequences:
--investments growth;
--growth of number of large enterprises;
-- "learning" effect;
--development of technological advance;
--effect on "benefit spread"
3. Specific long-, middle- and short-term consequences of adoption
to the rules of single market:
--growth of technical, social, work security, environmental, health
security standards;
--growth of activity efficiency due to formation of more rational
structures, specialization deepening;
--growth of production flows due to abolishment of physical
obstacles;
--spread lightening of new products, technological innovations, and
growth of the role of information systems.
4. Specific consequences of establishing common currency:
--decrease of costs related to currency operations;
--decrease of risk due to fluctuating currency exchange values;
--growth of prices stability and clearness and growth of trust in
single market (and integration processes in general) related to it.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
In order to attain the formulated aim it will be searched for
effects of trade creation and trade diversion in Lithuanian foreign
trade in the next part of the article. According to economic integration
theories (Pelkmans 1984; Molle et al. 2006) trade diversion is refusing
one of trade partners and orientating to the other ones with whom
integration group is being created; trade creation is sudden increase of
trade volumes due to better trade conditions. Those two effects are
ascribed to economic short-term (also called as static) consequences by
the above-mentioned theories.
4. Lithuanian foreign trade changes related to integration
processes
Lithuanian economy is characterized by significant openness. The
ratio of export and GDP between the years 1996 and 2007 grew up from
32.4% to 43.7% and that of import from 47.3% to 62.3% [2]. The figures
show that Lithuanian economy is largely dependent on the possibilities
of trade and cooperation with foreign partners. Integration processes
have been created and keep those tendencies. It should be noted that the
formation of the integration group means not only the strengthening of
cooperation with some partners, but also dissociation from other
partners, which do not fall into this group (Molle 2006: 11). When the
conditions of mutual trade provided by certain agreements change, the
volume of mutual trade also changes. Such changes are conspicuous in
Lithuanian trading relations with the main partner groups, i.e.
countries of the EU and CIS (Union of Independent States) (Fig. 4).
Within the period under discussion, the cases are distinguished
when Lithuanian export to the countries of both groups and import from
them faced dramatic changes. Between 1998 and 1999, when the European
Treaty came into force, Paragraph 3 of which 'Free movement of
goods' provided the establishment of free trade zone for industrial
goods, the essential reorientation of Lithuanian export occurred [3].
The so far dominating export to the East (CIS) succumbed to the export
to the West (EU).
Lithuania's entering into the EU (in 2004) did not cause the
increase of trade diversion effect: the increase of export share to the
EU is explained by increase of member states of this group and decrease
of export share to the CIS was insignificant. Besides, later this share
grew up slightly probably due to the export increase of certain groups
of the goods (most likely food and cars).
Fig. 5. Range of export of Lithuanian goods to Estonia (own
calculation on the basis of Lithuania's Statistics Department data)
It should be noted that Lithuania's accession to the EU
customs union eliminated the economic borders with the new Member
States. As a result, the trade exchange between them and Lithuania has
been developing at an accelerated rate. Lithuanian export to as many as
9 new states, up to 2003 ranging around 18%, in the year 2004 amounted
to 21.4%, and in 2007--26.6% of the total export. The import grew from
17.3 % in 2004 up to 23.3% in 2007, respectively. In the year 2004, the
Lithuanian exporters 'discovered' Estonia, which led to the
change in the tendencies of goods flow from Lithuania to this country
(Fig. 5). In turn, Lithuanian market was 'discovered' by
Polish manufacturers (Fig. 6).
Of course, changes in foreign trade are caused not only by
integration processes. Another event, which made significant influence
on the change of 'strength' of economic borders between
Lithuania and other countries, was the accession of Lithuania to the
World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2000. Following the year 2000, the
export to such countries, as Turkey and the USA almost doubled (Fig. 7).
After Lithuania joined the EU (2004), the export to the USA increased
significantly. It is explained by so-called effect of terms-of-trade
changing: the EU and the USA having certain agreements till that time
which controlled mutual trade while Lithuania had no such agreements.
Of course, changes in foreign trade are caused not only by
integration processes. Another event, which made significant influence
on the change of 'strength' of economic borders between
Lithuania and other countries, was the accession of Lithuania to the
World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2000. Following the year 2000, the
export to such countries, as Turkey and the USA almost doubled (Fig. 7).
After Lithuania joined the EU (2004), the export to the USA increased
significantly. It is explained by so-called effect of terms-of-trade
changing: the EU and the USA having certain agreements till that time
which controlled mutual trade while Lithuania had no such agreements.
A limited coverage of this paper prevents detailed analysis of the
changes in Lithuanian trade exchange, the index of disappearance or
emergence of economic borders. The analysis of trade with certain EU or
CIS countries, or of the movement of certain goods groups, would, beyond
doubt, provide a wider and more convincing picture of the phenomenon of
the emergence, existence or disappearance of economic borders under the
influence of integration processes.
Conclusions
1. Despite the mentioned remark, the provided information shows
that in Lithuania's relations with other countries integration
processes perform the role that is provided by economic integration
theories. Disappearance of economic boundaries with the major part of
Western Europe countries gives opportunities for Lithuanian economic
subjects to expand goods exchanges with particular subjects from other
countries. As the derivative result of this expansion more rational
industrial structure of our country develops, disposed resources are
used better, effects of scale and learning appear, other changes occur
named as long-term (dynamic) integration consequences in the first part
of this article.
2. The greatest change of Lithuanian foreign trade related to the
integration is so-called effect of trade diversion. After the European
Treaty came into force significant over-orientation of Lithuania's
export from 'East' to 'West' occurred in the period
of 1998-2000. New orientation remained unchanged for the whole decade.
Probably, despite greater competition in Western Europe countries
Lithuanian manufacturers choose the activity in more stable politically
and economically markets of those countries. Though it is not spoken
about it in the article, it should be noted that there was not such
significant effect of trade diversion in the case of import. It can be
explained by the fact that major part of the import from CSI is set from
raw materials (for industry and energetic) that cannot be changed by the
import from Western Europe.
3. The facts under discussion have the reflection at microeconomic
(enterprise) level too. Goods manufactured by enterprises are the
objects of trade exchanges, therefore changes of Lithuania's export
and import correspondent with the statements of integration theories
show the ability of country's enterprises to react adequately to
the changes caused by integration processes.
doi: 10.3846/btp.2011.11
Received 26 November 2010; accepted 26 February 2011
Iteikta 2010-11-26; priimta 2011-02-26
References
Balassa, B. 1961. The Theory of Economic Integration. London: Allen
and Unvin. 304 p.
Verslas: teorija ir praktika, 2011, 12(2): 103-112 111 Bernatonyte,
D.; Normantiene, A. 2009. Estimation of Trade Specialization: the Case
of the Baltic States, Inzinerine Ekonomika--Engineering Economics 2:
7-13.
Brazukiene, I. 1998. Lietuvos uzsienio prekybos krypciu tendencijos
1990-1997 metais, Geografijos metrastis 31: 425-434.
Brazukiene, I. 2005. Lietuvos uzsienio prekybos teritorine sklaida
1996-2003 metais, Geografija 41(2): 41-44.
Davulis, G. 2009. Problems of the Adoption of the Euro in
Lithuania, Intellectual Economics 2(6): 108-115.
EKT grupe. 2003. Lietuvos integarcijos i ES finansinio, ekonominio
ir socialinio poveikio susisteminimas ir analize. Vilnius: Eugrimas. 114
p.
Jakutis, A.; Liukaitis, R.; Samulevicius, J. 2007. Analysis of the
factors of export development of Lithuania, Technological and Economic
Development of Economy 13(4): 272-279.
Jovanovic, N. M. 1997. European Economic Integration. London:
Routledge. 735 p. doi:10.4324/9780203009864
Jovanovic, N. M. 2006. The Economics of European Integration.
Cheltenham: Edward Englar. 918 p.
Kawecka-Wyrzykowska, E.; Synowiec, E. (Eds.). 2001. Unia
Europejska. Warszawa: Instytut Koniuktur i Cen Handlu Zagraniczego.
Kawecka-Wyrzykowska, E. 1999. Polska w drodze do Unii Europejskiej.
Warszawa: PWE. 314 p.
Kawecka-Wyrzykowska, E. 2001. Uklad Europejski i ocena jego
funkcionowania, in Kawecka-Wyrzykowska, E.; Synowiec, E. (Eds.). Unia
Europejska. Warszawa: Instytut Koniuktur i Cen Handlu Zagranicznego,
617-646.
Kraftova, I.; Kraftov, J. 2004. The main factors of dynamics
equilibrium of Czech companies at the entrance into the EU, in Economic
and Management-2004, International Conference Proceedings 2. Kaunas:
Technologija, 75-82.
Lietuvos integarcijos i ES poveikio Lietuvos ekonomikai 2002-2006
metus (ex-post) vertinimas. 2007. UAB "Ekonomines konsultacijos ir
tyrimai" [interaktyvus], [ziureta 2010 m. rugsejo 15 d.]. Prieiga
per interneta: <http://www.euro.lt/documents/poveikio_tyrimai/
GALUTINE_ATASKAITA_ex_post_tyrimas.pdf>.
Melnikas, B. 2008. Integral spaces in the European Union: possible
Trends of social, economic and technological integration in the Baltic
region, Journal of Business Economics and Management 9(1): 65-77.
doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.65-77
Misala, J. 2009. Funkcjonowanie Wspolnoty Europejskiej--kilka
stylizowanych faktow, in Stepniak, A.; Uminski, S.; Zablocka, A. (Eds.).
Wybrane problemy integracji europejskiej. Sopot: Uniwersytet Gdanski,
25-42.
Molle, W. 2006. The Economics of European Integration: Theory,
Practice, Policy. Aldershot: Ashgate. 446 p.
Molle, W. 2009. Through rough or smooth waters, the EU moves
forward, in Stepniak, A.; Uminski, S.; Zablocka, A. (Eds.). Wybrane
problemy integracji europejskiej. Sopot: Uniwersytet Gdanski, 11-24.
Morkeliunas, A.; Ziaunys, M. 2000. Lietuvos uzsienio prekybos
apyvartos prognozavimas, Ekonomika 52: 92-101.
Niemiec, M. 2008. Effects of creation and shift of foreign direct
investments--analysis on the example of Baltic Europe Countries, in
Ignasiak-Szulc, A.; Kosiedovski, W. (Eds.). Problems of economic
cooperation in Baltic Region. Torun: Nicolaus Copernicus University,
177-191.
Olczyk, M.; Wolszczak-Derlacz, J. 2009. The evolution of market
integration between the EU and Poland--price and trade approach, in
Stepniak, A.; Uminski, S.; Zablocka, A. (Eds.). Wybrane problemy
integracji Europejskiej. Sopot: Uniwersytet Gdanski, 401-412.
Pelkmans, J. 1984. Market Integration in the Eoropean Community.
The Hague: Martinus Nijkoff. 323 p.
Rivza, B.; Cingule, S.; Latviete, I. 2010. Acquisition of EU
structural funds in Ireland and Latvia, European Integration Studies.
Research and Topicalities 4: 116-124.
Starkeviciute, M. 2007. Lietuvos ekonomines integracijos gaires,
Intelektine ekonomika 1(1): 82-86.
Stawarska, R. 1998. On some consequences of the eastern enlargement
of the European Union, in Zielinska-Glebocka, A.; Stiepniak, A. (Eds.).
EU Adjustment to Eastern Enlargement: Polish and European Perspective.
Gdansk: Fundacja Rozwoju Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego, 160-173.
Swierkocki, J.; Woreta, R. 1998. Measuring economic effects of
assesion to the European Union: polish experience, in A.
Zielinska-Glebocka, A. Stepniak (Eds.). EU Adjustment to Eastern
Enlargement: Polish and European Perspective. Ed. by Gdansk: Fundacja
Rozwoju Uniwersytetu Gdanskiego, 127-141.
Travkina, I.; Dudzeviciute, G.; Maciukeviciene, L. 2009. Accession
to the European Union: impact of legislation change on performance of
Lithuanian companies, Verslas: teorija ir praktika [Business: Theory and
Practice] 10(2): 142-149. doi:10.3846/1648-0627.2009.10.142-149
Tsoukalis, L. 2003. The New European Economy Revisited. New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc.
Vilpisauskas, R. 2000. Lietuvos uzsienio prekybos politika ir jos
raida: veiksniu analize, Pinigu studijos 3: 45-66.
Zitkus, L.; Zitkiene, R. 2008. Economic boundaries in global world:
theoretical aspects and practical case of Lithuania, in Meeting Global
Challenges: Working papers Institute of International Business,
University of Gdansk. Sopot, Vol. 25, 597-608.
[1] All economic, political, social and other changes caused by
integration process are considered as integration consequences in this
article. As well it is believed that economic consequences are initial
and show earlier than others, though their reasons can be (and probably
are) political (Tsoukalis 1998).
[2] Authors' calculation on the basis of Lithuania's
Statistics Department data. It should be noted that during past few
years (probably due to the crisis) import slightly decreased the ratio
of export and GDP was 44.5% in 2009.
[3] Though it was fixed in the treaty to create free trade zone
until 2000, customs and quantitative limitations of export from
Lithuania to EU countries have been repealed as soon as the treaty came
into force (1 January 1998) following the principle of asymmetry.
Rima Zitkiene. Assoc. Prof., Dr, Dean of Faculty of Economics and
finance management of Mykolas Romeris University. Field of interests:
international trade, business, international trade of services,
consequences of European integration. She is author of twenty--five
articles.
Leonas Zitkus. Assoc. Prof., Dr, Head of Department of European
studies, Kaunas University of Technology, coordinator of Jean Monnet
module "Features of European business administration". Field
of interests: economic subjects in European integration processes,
consequences of European integration, competitiveness of economic
subjects. He is author of thirty articles.
Rima Zitkiene (1), Leonas Zitkus (2)
(1) Mykolas Romeris University, Ateities g. 20, LT-08303 Vilnius,
Lithuania
(2) Kaunas University of Technology, Kestucio g. 8, LT-44320
Kaunas, Lithuania
E-mails: (1) rizit3@mruni.eu (corresponding author); (2)
leonas.zitkus@ktu.lt
(1) Mykolo Romerio universitetas, Ateities g. 20, LT-08303 Vilnius,
Lietuva
(2) Kauno technologijos universitetas, Kestucio g. 8, LT-44320
Kaunas, Lietuva El. pastas: 1rizit3@mruni.eu; 2leonas.zitkus@ktu.lt
Table 1. The deepening of Lithuania's integration to the EU
Year Agreement Integration period
1992 Trade, commercial Concession of greatest
and economic favour status for
cooperation partners
agreement
1995 The European Free trade area since
(Association) Treaty 2000 and immediate
(came into force in elimination of
1998-02-01) export duties
and quantitative
limitations for
Lithuanian goods
2004 Treaty of the EU Accession to the EU
membership (2004- common market
05-01)
Table 2. Bilateral Association agreements between the European
Community and the countries of Mediterranean Sea Region
Country Expiry of Signing of
negotiations agreements
Tunisia June, 1995 1995-07-17
Israel Sept., 1995 1995-11-20
Morocco Nov., 1995 1996-02-26
Palestine Apr., 1996 1997-02-24
Jordan Apr., 1997 1997-11-24
Egypt Apr., 1997 -
Lebanon, negotiations
Algeria, in progress
Syria
Country Agreement coming Announced
into force
Tunisia 1998-03-01 OJ L 97/98,
1998-08-30
Israel 2000-06-01 OJ L 147/2000,
2000-06-21
Morocco 2000-03-01 OJ L 70/2000,
2000-03-18
Palestine 1997-07-01 OJ L 187/97,
1997-07-16
Jordan - -
Egypt - -
Lebanon,
Algeria,
Syria
Table 3. Partnership and Cooperation agreements between the EC and CIS
Country Signing of Agreement Announced
agreements coming
into force
Ukraine 1999-06-14 1998-03-01 OJ L 49/98,
1998-02-19
Russia 1994-06-24 1997-12-01 OJ L 327/97,
1997-11-28
Moldova 1998-11-28 1998-07-01 OJ L 181/98,
1998-06-24
Kazakhstan 1995-01-23 1999-07-01 OJ L 196/99,
1999-07-28
Kyrgyzstan 1995-02-09 1999-07-01 OJ L 196/99,
1999-07-28
Armenia 1996-04-22 1999-07-01 OJ L 239/99,
1999-09-09
Azerbaijan 1996-04-22 1999-07-01 OJ L 246/99,
1999-09-17
Georgia 1996-04-22 1999-07-01 OJ L 205/99,
1999-08-04
Uzbekistan 1996-04-22 1999-07-01 OJ L 229/99,
1999-08-31
Turkmenistan negotiations
started
1997-05-23
Belarus 1995-03-06 1996 COM (95)
relations 245 final,
frozen due 1995-03-25
to political
reasons.
Transitional
agreement
in force
(1995)
Tajikistan trade and
cooperation
agreement
of 1999 in
force
Note: The Partnership and Cooperation agreement between Ukraine and
Russia is a constituent part of EU strategy (04.09.1999) with regard to
these countries.
Fig. 1. EC economic boundaries: 'target' metaphor
EC Single market
Circle 1. Custom unions
Circl2 2. Free trade arcas
Circle 3. Bilateral preferential agreements
Circle 4. Non-preferential trade agreements
Note: table made from pie chart.
Fig. 4. Range of Lithuania's export to the EU and CIS countries
(own calculation on the basis of Lithuania's Statistics
Department data)
Export share %
Establishment of ACCESSION to EU
free trade common market: 2004
area with EU: 1998
Year CIS EU
1997 46,4 32,5
1998 35,7 38
1999 18,2 50,1
2000 16,3 47,9
2001 19,7 47,8
2002 19,2 48,4
2003 17 42
2004 16,3 66,9
2005 17,7 63,4
2006 21,2 63,6
2007 24,3 65,1
2008 25,8 60,3
2009 23,4 64,2
Note: Table made from line graph.
Fig. 5. Range of export of Lithuanian goods to Estonia (own
calculation on the basis of Lithuania's Statistics Department
data)
Export share %
Year ACCESSION of both countries to EU
common market: 2004
1997 2,5
1998 2,6
1999 2,4
2000 2,3
2001 3,2
2002 3,8
2003 3,3
2004 5
2005 5,9
2006 6,5
2007 6,7
Note: Table made from line graph.
Fig. 6. Range of import of Polish goods to Lithuania (own
calculation on the basis of Lithuania's Statistics Department
data)
Export share %
Year ACCESSION of both countries to EU
common market: 2004
1997 4,9
1998 5,5
1999 5,7
2000 4,9
2001 4,9
2002 4,8
2003 5,2
2004 7,6
2005 8,3
2006 9,5
2007 10,8
2008 10
2009 10
Note: Table made from line graph.
Fig. 7. Lithuania's export to Turkey and the USA (created by
the authors on the basis of Lithuania's Statistics Department
data)
Export share %
Year ACCESSION of both countries to EU
common market: 2004
1997 4,9
1998 5,5
1999 5,7
2000 4,9
2001 4,9
2002 4,8
2003 5,2
2004 7,6
2005 8,3
2006 9,5
2007 10,8
2008 10
2009 10
Note: Table made from line graph.
